analysis of flight management systems (fmss)

Public Release, Case Number 07-0053© 2007 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.

Analysis of Flight Management Systems (FMSs)

“FMC Field Observations Trial”

Al Herndon, Mike Cramer, Ralf Mayer, Randal Ottobre, Greg Tennille, Dale Goodrich

Aeronautical Charting ForumNational Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

May 2, 2007

Public Release, Case Number 07-0053© 2007 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.2

Public Release, Case Number: 07-0053

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

“The contents of this material reflect the views of the author and/or the Director of the Center for

Advanced Aviation System Development. Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the Department of Transportation makes any

warranty or guarantee, or promise, expressed or implied, concerning the content or accuracy of

the views expressed herein.”

©2007 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.


Test and Evaluation Method

• A short list of major “problems” encountered during RNAV implementations was compiled

• An route of flight was constructed using current RNAV procedures that contain examples of the problem areas

• The route contained various constraints and:– Departure climbing / accelerating turns with

average and maximum course changes– Level segment with a turn at cruise altitude– Arrival / approach descending / decelerating turns

with maximum and average angular extent– A missed approach with holding


DAWGSTHREE

RNAV SID

ERLINTWO

RNAV STAR

RNAV RWY 26R


Manufacturers

• Smiths Aerospace (MITRE in-house Test Bench)– B737-600 (U-10.5A)

• CMC Electronics (Canadian Marconi)– B747-200 (CMA-900/2014)

• Honeywell– Embraer 145 (NZ-2000)

• Universal– Cessna Citation II (UNS-1E SCN801.5)

• Rockwell Collins– CRJ-700 (FMC-4200)

• FAA Oklahoma City (AFS-440)– B737-800 (U-10.5A)

• Boeing (Honeywell)– Boeing 757-200, 767-300, 777-200, 747-400

• Thales Smiths– Airbus 320 (FMS2)


Results Presentation

• The results are presented graphically for each system, with combined graphs showing the comparisons.

• Each system’s performance was shown as a pair of tracks, with and without wind– For each track, the altitude, roll angle and ground

speed were plotted vs along-track distance• This allows comparison of turn anticipation and speed

performance– For three particular sections of the path (two turns

and the hold) there are graphs of• Expanded scale for the above data and• Distance from flown path to the “stick” tracks


Summary of Track Data

Document Number Here© 2006 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved.9


Summary of Tracks


Summary of Tracks

2

510


Summary of Tracks(altitude, roll angle, ground speed)

2

5 102

5

10


Summary of Track Data



Turn # 2, No Wind

Max D


Turn # 2, No Wind

1 NM


Turn # 2, No Wind

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Route Along-Track Distance (NM)

Rou

te-T

rack

Lat

eral

Dis

tanc

e (N

M) CASE 1

CASE 2CASE 3CASE 4CASE 5CASE 6

TERPS max D =1.7

TERPS DTA

FMS DTA

Wpt Passage


Arrival Descending Turn



Turn # 5, No Wind

5 NMMax D


Turn # 5, No Wind


Turn # 5, No Wind

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110

Route Along-Track Distance (NM)

Rou

te-T

rack

Lat

eral

Dis

tanc

e (N

M) CASE 1

CASE 2CASE 3CASE 4CASE 5CASE 6

TERPS DTA

TERPS Max D


Standard Holding



Hold, All Tracks, No Wind

5 NM


Summary of Tracks


Desired Path (what you filed for: J80 or direct to JFK, or SID/STAR, or approach, etc.)

Defined Path (the” computed path”, the “displayed path” on the HSI in the cockpit)

Actual Path (the path the aircraft is flying)

FTE

NSE

TSE

The Navigation System Error (NSE) is the difference between the “actual” pathof an aircraft and its “defined” (displayed or computed) path.The difference between the “desired path” and the “defined path” is called FlightTechnical Error (FTE). The vector sum of NSE and FTE is Total System Error(TSE).

From ICAO Doc. 9613/DO-208: CROSS-TRACK ERROR The perpendicular deviationthat the airplane is to the left or right of the “desired path.” This error is equal to thecross-track component of the Total System Error (TSE). Note: Pilot sees Cross-Trackon the CDU but not Cross-Track Error.See next slide for DO-236 definitions.

J80 (as depicted on a Jepp chart)

Pilot’sMap

Display

The path the pilotsees in the cockpit

The path the pilot wants to fly

The path the aircraftIs actually flying


Recommendations

• Convene a panel of experts under the PARC to study these results and make recommendations to improve the standard set forth in DO-236B for lateral fly-by turn performance

• Extend the analysis to vertical path elements under the same venue as above

• Make much more standard use of RF and “fixed radius turns” to constrain turns in RNAV procedures (Near Term)

• Develop regulatory material to make FMC’s conform to holding pattern constructions of DO-236B Section 3.4.2.1

• Note – PARC has now set up a FMS Standards Action Team for these tasks.


FMS Evaluation Test Plan

• Route of Flight: KSAN-KLAX– Border Five

Departure (RNAV)

– Paradise Four Arrival (RNAV)

– LAX Approach RNAV (GPS) RWY 25L

• No Wind

• Analyze Aircraft path

– Not FMS calculated

path


Manufacturers' & FMC’s

Manufacturer FMC Aircraft

Smiths Aerospace U10.5 FAA B737-800 Simulator

U10.6 B737-600 MITRE Lab Test Bench

U10.6 B737-600 sFMS USB Test Bench

Thales Smiths FMS2 Airbus 320 Test Bench

Honeywell Primus EPIC Embraer 190 Test Bench

Primus EPIC Gulfstream V Test Bench

Legacy 400K UAL Airbus 320 Simulator

Pegasus 2005 JBU Airbus 320 Simulator

Pegasus 2005 B767-300 Test Bench


Manufacturers' & FMC’s(continued)

Manufacturer FMC Aircraft

Honeywell AIMS Block Point 2005 B777-200 Test Bench

747-4 Load 16 B747-400 Test Bench

Rockwell Collins FMS-4200 CRJ-700 Test Bench

Universal Avionics UNS1-E Cessna Citation II

Test Bench

CMC Electronics CMA-900 B747-200 Test Bench


AllAltitude Profiles


Vertical Route Conformance ObservationsAll Speeds

• Significant variation in betweenwaypoint constraints as well as at waypoint constraints

• Variations may be partially due to attempts to fly optimal path between constraints

• “Between” constraints not handled by some systems

-7000

-6000

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

80 100 120 140 160 180

Along-Route Distance (NM)

Vert

ical

Diff

eren

ce (f

t)

DUEDD ARNES LIMMA


Public Link to:MITRE 2006 Technical Papers

• http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_06/index.html

http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_06/index.html

http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_06/index.html


Part 121 Aircraft in the NAS1st Quarter, 2007

TOTAL GPS % FMC % Advanced %

11 PAX MAJOR

3,645 1,910 52% 3,405 93% 1,295 33%

REGIONAL 2,291 1,741 76% 2,027 88% 693 30%

CARGO 1,167 468 40% 582 50% 155 13%

OTHER 414 229 55% 298 72% 206 50%

TOTAL 7,517 4,348 59% 6,312 84% 2,349 31%

*Advanced = FMS’s + IRU’s + GPS’s + RNP ALERTING + RF


Part 121 Aircraft in the NAS1st Quarter, 2007

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

11 Major Regional Cargo Other Total

Total FMCGPSAdvanced


Part 121 Jets/Props1st Quarter, 2007

TOTAL JETS % TURBO

PROP

% RECIP %

11 MAJOR

3,645 3,645 100% 0 0 0 0

REGIONAL 2,291 1,704 74% 587 26% 0 0

CARGO 1,167 1,084 93% 52 4% 31 3%

OTHER 414 392 95% 22 5% 0 0

TOTAL 7,517 6825 90.7% 661 9% 31 .3%


RNAV & GPS Increases Part 121 Major Airlines

(11 PAX & 2 Cargo)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002 2007

RNAVGPS


To Date04/25/2007

Airlines that have a username and password and/or have completed or partially completed the “equipment section” of the web based

Operator Survey

ABX ATA Flight Options NetJets Int’l Spirit

Air Canada Jazz Air Transport Int’l Frontier NetJets Large Trans States

Air Wisconsin Atlantic SE GoJet North American United*

Air Tran Atlas Horizon* Northwest* UPS

Aloha Chautauqua JetBlue Pace Aviation US Airways*

America West* Continental* Kalitta Air Pinnacle World

American* Comair Mesa PSA

American Eagle* Delta* Mesaba Ryan Air

Allegiant Executive Jet Mgt Miami Air SkyWest

Alaska* Express Jet* Midwest Southern Air

Astar Air Cargo FedEx NetJets Southwest*

*Completed the original paper survey.

analysis of flight management systems (fmss)

Documents